This may be farewell.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The speed is ... reckless. Love it.

And here's the insane part. The new setup will cost me, bottom line, ~$20 more a month.

[madog]

The speed is ... reckless. Love it.

And here's the insane part.  

The insane part is I wrote this post tomorrow  ... thats how fast it is 

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Prove it.  Or provide evidence.  Or posit an argument that consists of anything more than just shouting your assertions.

Boru

Prove that America does not exist because of Cherry Trees and not telling lies. 

Again, there is no dispute that the crown in Notre Dame exists. WE BOTH AGREE  IT DOES.


I dispute it being a first hand relic of the alleged year of 34 where the bible claims he was crucified. 

The first mention of that relic came long after the story itself. 

That says to me, that humans concocted a stage prop AFTER THE FACT,  to market a story they liked way after the first claims of a legend were made.

I'm not asking you to prove that the crown at Notre Dame exists.  I'm asking you to demonstrate how you know it was constructed centuries after the fact.  The late mention of the Crown means nothing.  The Sphinx was built about 2500 BCE but isn't mentioned in any surviving records before about 1400 BCE (and that record is kind of problematic).  Does that mean the Sphinx really dates from 1400 BCE?

So, again, what actual evidence or arguments do you have that the Crown is not authentic?

Boru

[Brian37]

Prove that America does not exist because of Cherry Trees and not telling lies. 

Again, there is no dispute that the crown in Notre Dame exists. WE BOTH AGREE  IT DOES.


I dispute it being a first hand relic of the alleged year of 34 where the bible claims he was crucified. 

The first mention of that relic came long after the story itself. 

That says to me, that humans concocted a stage prop AFTER THE FACT,  to market a story they liked way after the first claims of a legend were made.

I'm not asking you to prove that the crown at Notre Dame exists.  I'm asking you to demonstrate how you know it was constructed centuries after the fact.  The late mention of the Crown means nothing.  The Sphinx was built about 2500 BCE but isn't mentioned in any surviving records before about 1400 BCE (and that record is kind of problematic).  Does that mean the Sphinx really dates from 1400 BCE?

So, again, what actual evidence or arguments do you have that the Crown is not authentic?

Boru

Holy crap, I am talking about the claimed crown, not the french building.

But neither existed in the year 0 regardless. Neither the building or the claimed crown existed in 34. 

Start off with just the building.  The building started construction in 1160. AGAIN, I am not good at math, but that seems way after the year "0" much less "34".

If an artifact proved credibility of ANY RELIGION OR SOCIETY having a patent on reality, then the MAYANS AND Egyptian gods would be real.

Humans make shit up. Including relics that are fake to lend credibility to a story that society wishes were true.

If the existence of a physical object made one religion credible then all religions are credible.

The alleged crown was not made in the year the bible claims. It was manufactured way after the fact just like an illusionist creates new props to get you to 

believe their bullshit.

What those manufacturers did back then was not objective archaeology. It was marketing to sell a story.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Holy crap, I am talking about the claimed crown, not the french building.

So am I.  I'm talking about the crown AT Notre Dame.

But neither existed in the year 0 regardless.

 
There was no 'year 0'.  The calendar goes from 1 BCE to 1 CE.

Neither the building or the claimed crown existed in 34. 

You're correct about the cathedral, but I don't care.  I'm asking you about the Crown.

Start of with just the building.  The building started construction in 1160. AGAIN, I am not good at math, but that seems way after the year "0" much less "34".

Why do you keep bringing this up?  No one's asking about the cathedral. (Again, no such thing as 'year 0')

If an artifact proved credibility of ANY RELIGION OR SOCIETY having a patent on reality, then the MAYANS AND Egyptian gods would be real.

No one is claiming that the historicity of a religious artifact proves anything about the religion itself.  Why do you keep dragging this up?  It's completely irrelevant to the discussion.

Humans make shit up. Including relics that are fake to lend credibility to a story that society wishes were true.

True as far as it goes.  But since some religious relics are undoubtedly authentic, why are you so dead set against the possibility that the Crown might be?

If the existence of a physical object made one religion credible then all religions are credible.

See above.  Historical reliability has nothing to do with religious credibility.

The alleged crown was not made in the year the bible claims. It was manufactured way after the fact just like an illusionist creates new props to get you to believe their bullshit.

Saying that over and over won't make it any more true.  I gather that this is your opinion (and it happens to be one I share).  But - for the teenth time, how do you KNOW?

Boru

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Finally got that upgraded cable installed.

[img][/img]


Wheeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!

[Anomalocaris]

The installer is coming to upgrade our Internet to 1000mbps. Up from 25 mbps. (I'm not sure I'll notice the difference all that much.)

Anyway, I will be downloading the Library of Congress for a few minutes.

You realize once you get 1000mbps, your service might actually be fast enough to download “hello, world” in minutes, roughly when you need it?

[Angrboda]

Finally got that upgraded cable installed.

Shop.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Finally got that upgraded cable installed.

Shop.

You want to see one of my "shops"?

[LastPoet]

I guess it comes with having a hot wife heh?